HenryL.,

John Howard gave Cardinal Pell a character reference
for his court hearings and he also stated that his
opinion of the Cardinal did not change after the
conviction.

Richard Cooke writing in The Guardian asks the question -
"What happens when the Australian Establishment lines
up behind a convicted paedophile?"

"Supporting a convicted paedophile is morally wrong -
was an uncontroversial statement in Australia a few days
ago. It is no longer and that change - really a tectonic
one has shifted the grounds of debate so far it is hard
for some to know where to stand. It is a shift that began
immediately after Cardinal George Pell's conviction on
child sexual abuse charges were announced."

Cooke goes on to say "Pell's defenders cannot be shamed.
A man has been found guilty of orally raping two 13 year"
old boys and now people are willing to protect him."

"Ray Hadley is almost alone among conservatives in backing
the verdict reached by the jury or at least respecting it.
Ï think it would have been more prudent to allow justice
to take its course before a public exhibition of the
support for a now-convicted paedophile, he said."

"Ït's impossible to put ourselves in the position of the jury
because they're the only ones who heard that evidence."

Richard Cooke tells us that "the law is complex and an
appeals process is still to take place. But Pell's
defenders have not decided on his guiltlessness after a
careful review of the evidence. They don't know what
the evidence is. They have not sat in on the trial, or
reviewed its transcripts. It seems that they did not - and
this is damning - even take the time or
have the inclination to read unsuppressed
media reports before weighing in."

"Apparently these crimes are unthinkable. How could a man
of such seniority and such faith commit such acts? Why would
he act so publicly and so spontaneously? why had his victims
taken so long to come forward?"

cont'd...

cont'd ...

HenryL.,

Cooke asks, "Where have these people been? Did these
past decades of institutional child abuse never
happen? Were they looking away the whole time? Has
everything we learned painfully about the damage it
does and its shame been unlearned? Can it be still
unrecognised that abusers groom whole communities
as well as individual children? Of all the
implausible excuses available, surely,
"But how could a priest do this?"must rank close to
the top."

Cooke explains that "when this is the response even to
a conviction you know why victims fear they will be
disbelieved and discredited. That fear is correct,
warranted and will be made stronger than ever before
by this disgrace."

"On top of this straw-clutching is a layer of active
disinformation, lying, and irrelevance. It is not
true that priests rarely abuse their victims..."

Cooke goes on to refer to the "tens of thousands of case
files. How many more are needed?" he asks.

He explains that "these files also find priests who raped
children not just in the sacristy... they molested children
not only in public but in front of their own family
members, sometimes in the same moving car. They raped them
while wearing vestments not only orally but anally as well.
That same untieable cincture had been used to bind the
hands ofa 16 year old boy who was then raped so
viciously he needed corrective surgery."

Öpportunistic priests have acted in windows of time not just
after mass, but on school excursion in public toilets.
They have molested every daughter in a five-daughter family."

Finally in summing up Cooke says, "So what about Pell's
case is implausible or even unusual?"

" For anyone willing to look it's almost humdrum once
compared to the vast prolific compendium of international
crime his institution has compiled."

"Unthinkable? What his defenders mean is they cannot bear
thinking about it."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/01/the-inconsistencies-of-george-pells-defenders-just-displays-their-power

Dear HenryL,

This is a witness account of giving testimony.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-06/paedophile-deacon-changed-me-my-daughter-taught-me-survivor/10872444

Quote
I testified for two days in a remote witness room and I'll never forget its every detail.
The smell of the antiseptic attempting to cover up the vomit from survivors before me. My sudden tears when I saw a battered teddy bear in the attached waiting room — children aren't allowed to take one in lest it's prejudicial to the jury.
Ice blocks so cold they burned my fingers, to stop me from dissociating — to keep me aware of my surroundings, so I wouldn't get lost in the memory.
The dozens of white envelopes full of evidence uncovered by the criminal investigation: photos of me as a child, layouts of bedrooms, back rooms and church halls. Letters written over the years by me and those I'd loved. The story of my lost life, handed to me then yanked away again.
One photo was of my childhood bed: white frilled doona cover, blossom trees outside my window. Pink and white.
Aitchison raped me on that bed and now I had to relive it: what he did, what I was wearing, whether I fought him. My body parts were described with foreign, technical names. I touched the photo in front of me, and the last tendrils of dignity fell away. I cried then. Really humiliating tears that tore sounds from my throat that no human should make.
The judge called a recess and my nose began to bleed heavily. The Sheriff said this happens a lot — our bodies aren't designed for the kind of stress testifying involves. She told me about a little girl who testified against a family member in a white dress with red cherries. The judge called a recess when her nose started bleeding but she didn't stop talking, so they kept her testifying. "By the time she finished, her dress wasn't white anymore."
End quote.

Aitchison was sentenced to 9 years in jail based on what you would call uncorroborated evidence.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/former-canberra-anglican-priest-jailed-for-historic-rapes-20180813-p4zx91.html

Do you want him to be set free too?

Having been felt up by a few blokes when I was teenager, just hand up the leg stuff, (you gently pushed their hand away and broke off all contact thenceforth), I have no time for pedophiles and would-be pedophiles. If Pell is guilty, he's probably guilty of sexual abuse hundreds of times over fifty years, since I don't think pedophiles change, they just get craftier and more calculating. They never give up.

So I wish Pell was guilty. But not on the pissy bit of evidence that we are aware of: he-said/he-said. Perhaps there's more than we don't hear about. It's a tragedy that many more witnesses didn't come forward to present their stories AND have some sort of backup. But if there are other cases, dreadful as they may be, some of which may even involve Pell, then the opportunity to present them in court has now gone.

Sexual abuse is about power, stronger over weaker, older men over boys, men over women, older men over younger women. Some of us have known far too many lovely young people who have been dreadfully abused, and, with no community support, have topped themselves. It's the lowest and vilest crime.

But an accusation still has to be proven: without some corroboration in this case, all a jury should have found was a verdict of "not proven". Unless there's much more to the case against Pell than assertions.

The problem is that Pell may win an appeal on those grounds, and go free forever, free as a bird.

Joe

Dear Joe,

how do we know what the evidence presented to
the jury was? Anyone who is passing comment on
the jury verdict - unless as Kristina Keneally
pointed out - they were in the room every day,
they heard everything the jury heard, they had
access to all the information the jury had - they're
actually doing a great disservice. Not only to
our democratic jury system but to the victims as
well.

We've had a legal process. Due process. A trial.
A jury has rendered a decision. The Cardinal has a
right to lodge his appeal and I believe it will be
treated appropriately. But the disregard that is
being shown to the jury and the disrespect that is
being shown to victims by this sort of commentary is
quite extraordinary.

Foxy,
I read the article by Richard Cooke but his honesty and integrity left me in the second paragraph, when he stated the accusations of sexual abuse of aboriginal kids was false. He was referring to the 'children are angels' report and went on to say that the response from the then PM was to 'send in the army'. If nothing else the Tennent Creek case verified the truth, so I classify Cooke's article as rubbish. Political garbage!

There is no doubt that cases of child abuse are sickening and I have read many, and some from the USA and Ireland. I would impose the maximum penalty for those proven. However they have to be proven. The base of our system is on proof. According to the 'Guardion' conviction can now be obtained by allegations on their own, which appears to be the case against Pell. Unless there is some dramatic evidence still to be released, he should be acquitted in my view. Justice must also be seen.